I think that a presumption of no AFD deletion for the same policy reason is a great idea, but not across the board. If someone brings up an AFD for a new reason, it should be eligible. But definitely not for the exact same reason infinitely. That's the problem that is going on as we speak for Conservapedia. Some new user is disregarding the results of the previous three or four AFD's and is once again saying it doesn't meet the qualifications for inclusion that were exactly the same as the AFD's that resulted in Keep. Preventing AFD's on the same policy might also work to make nominators be more clear about referring to policy in their reasoning for deletion. - VanTucky
On 6/14/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/06/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 14/06/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And naturally it's gone as a result of what looks to me like a rather messy process.
The 14th AfD just closed.
That says a lot. Why should the 14th AfD be any different from all the other AfDs?
And furthermore, the article's been around since September 2005 so that means on average it's gone up for AfD roughly every 1.3 months. Some sort of rate limit would be nice.
I agree. A four month moratorium following a "Keep", or two months after a "no consensus" seems plenty to me. Maybe 6 and 3 respectively.
The other change I'd really like to see to the AfD process is that, following a "Keep" result, there should be a presumption against deletion in further AfDs, with the preferred remedy (if remedy proves necessary) being restoration to the version of the article that was Kept. Otherwise, you get silly situations like this where people keep going and going until they eventually get the result they want.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l